The manuscript is accepted with major revisions as listed below

Comments for the Authors The paper showed another method on how materials synthesis applications that is an alternative to furnaces and ovens that are sensitive to temperature, pressure, and ambient species concentrations. The main takeaway the author was trying to portray is that this method allows for a wider range of operating conditions to enable operations inaccessible to a furnace or oven.

Overall great start to the paper, you should feel very successful that you have made it this far. These are suggestions that can make your paper better!

1. Great title conveying the information in the paper
2. What is the main problem with today’s techniques that are currently used?
3. The abstract does not seem to convey the impact of your design quickly, and does not convey an overall well thought out high quality of research. It can be more concise.
4. Poor prior research, the literature seemed to be listed off instead of investigating into the previous work. It seemed like it was there to show other processes instead of explaining major findings from those papers or why they should be used:
5. Why did you chose this topic for research?
6. Why is it important?
7. What benefits does this give?
8. Small sampling from previous analytical papers
9. Figure 1 can be improved through the use of labels and associated dimensions
10. Nice experimental set-up diagram to show the working parts of the experimental set up: Why did you choose this approach?
11. Are all variables accounted for in 2.2?
12. Do equation 1 and 2 account for the entire reaction? Set-up is completely covered?
13. Not very detailed methodology
14. Figure 1 and slight wording does not seem to be enough to explain the experimental set-up
15. Results on figure 3 are not thorough and the meaning is not explained
16. Figure 3 had a very brief discussion, almost seemed to have little impact on results
17. Figure 4 was barely discussed as well, the results are very vague in this paper
18. How precise were these results, no numbers comparing anything to impact of procedure
19. The author failed to explain the implications of keeping pressure up and keeping a constant wall temperature on the materials synthesis process
20. Conclusion states the point that the CVCC approach yields higher maximum temperatures and pressures yet does not show any comparisons or testing compared to this form so it is unbased
21. Why do I want an increase in insulation?
22. What is the last sentence based off of, where did you come to this conclusion, etc…

Before I can recommend publication the major revision should be addressed:

1. The paper does not seem tied together well, how the experiment relates to materials synthesis applications and its viability to replace other methods that are currently used.
2. A much more thorough introduction should be investigated
3. Figures need to be more detailed and labeled for the reader to understand
4. A comparison showing results from all methods need to be carried out to ground the baseless claims of impact in the conclusion
5. The results need to be discussed in much greater detail and maybe more components need to be investigated